Why does there need to be a correction? The article stated, "Potential configurations included a dual-core Core i5 model,". It did not state that there is a dual core i5 available now.

The article should be corrected because the current quad-core iMac uses a desktop Core i5 CPU and a desktop Core i7 CPU. The mobile variant of the Core i5 and Core i7 is a dual core CPU only.

Quote:

Potential configurations included a dual-core Core i5 model, as well as quad-core Core i5 and Core i7 configurations. Also of interest, according to those same people, were indications that new iMacs would be the first Macs to employ Intel's Core i3 processor at the low-end, which would have the new family of desktops utilize all three flavors of Intel's mobile Core line of processors.

As written, the second sentence implies that the next iMacs would use mobile Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs (which would all be dual cores). The first sentence (which you quoted) is more likely: a mobile dual core Core i5 entry level iMac with a quad-core Core i5 mid range model and a quad-core Core i7 high end model.

It is highly unlikely that the next iMacs would include all three types of dual core mobile CPUs, the Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7, in addition to the quad-core Core i5 and Core i7 because:

1- it creates confusion between dual core and quad-core Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs;
2- There is no need to use mobile CPUs in a desktop computer;
3- Using a mobile CPU in a desktop computer negates the advantage of a desktop computer, i.e. power instead of portability;
4- There is not a great price difference between the dual core mobile Core CPU and the quad-core desktop Core CPU.

The iMac is a consumer, family, office desktop computer which must compare favorably with competing models using Windows 7. This can only be accomplished if the iMac has a similar price range for comparable features. And Apple must offer desktop computers with desktop CPUs to offer a complete range of models to potential buyers.

The point is USB 3 will come to the Mac when it is built into the chipset supporting the CPU. I don' t completely dismiss the possibility of Apple using a discreet USB3 chipset but there are two major considerations. One is that that would be out of the norm for Apple. The second issue is that most of the discreet USB3 chips have only recently been revved to the point they would be acceptable to Apple.

Realize too that both AMD and Intel will have that support in their products very soon. So USB 3 could very well be in the new hardware, it is really a matter of Intel or AMD being willing to tie their product releases to Apples schedule. In otherwords if Apple and AMD team up to release a Fusion based Mac you will get USB3.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snafu

Please take into account products like this and this from Blackmagic Design, or this one from Sharkoon (which I have). You can see such a speedy bus opens many interesting possibilities.

Well it would if every USB 3 implementation was up to snuff. You seem to think that I see no need for a high speed bus. Nothing could be further from the truth. Im simply saying Apple wont do USB 3 until it is economucal and reliable. Further USB 3 is dead end tech and one would be wise to carefully consider investing in it.

Quote:

What I don't quite get is FW1600 or FW3200: it's good to see them arrive, but one guesses it is too late already (what with Apple disdaining FW in MacBooks, so signalling it was intending to kill it as a low-end Macs feature), I doubt many third parties would join that bandwagon.

I'm not sure what is up with Firewire, it will still be far better than USB 3.

As to Apple and Firewire on the Mac Book I honestly doubt they where trying to kill Firewire by deleting it from the Mac Book. There are a number of other things that could have caused that to happen. From issues with power management and budgetting to mixing up data as to average cosummer usage with respect to the Mac Book. Remember Apple sees the Mac Book as its lowest end laptop serving people with modest needs.

In any event Firewire is in many ways like USB3, Apple cant implement the stadard without acceptable hardware. Software without chips is useless. It ha probably been a good year since i last looked at TIs Firewire products, at that time they had nothing to implement Firewire 3200.

In any event Firewire is a niche product that can perform extremely well for products that require it. However outside of those niche uses, it is not well accepted. This is one reason why i want to see LightPeak ASAP with Apple publicly announcing a transition to LightPeak and a phase out of FireWire. In light of LightPeak USB 3 is a bit of a joke.

I don't think that's physically possible currently. The current PPI of the 21.5 and 27" displays respectively is 102.46 and 108.7855. To achieve 300ppi at that screen size, you would need a smidge under 7200x4050 on the 27" screen. You would need slightly more than 5600x3150 on the 21.5" screen. I don't see that happening anytime soon. Imagine trying to read anything at that size heh.

I don't think that's physically possible currently. The current PPI of the 21.5 and 27" displays respectively is 102.46 and 108.7855. To achieve 300ppi at that screen size, you would need a smidge under 7200x4050 on the 27" screen. You would need slightly more than 5600x3150 on the 21.5" screen. I don't see that happening anytime soon. Imagine trying to read anything at that size heh.

The point of the retina display is to use more pixels to draw things which are the same physical size... i.e. resolution independence. The appearance of text, for example, will be crisp and sharp at any font size. You could try to display 3 point text, but at you point out almost nobody could read it.

The article should be corrected because the current quad-core iMac uses a desktop Core i5 CPU and a desktop Core i7 CPU. The mobile variant of the Core i5 and Core i7 is a dual core CPU only.

As written, the second sentence implies that the next iMacs would use mobile Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs (which would all be dual cores). The first sentence (which you quoted) is more likely: a mobile dual core Core i5 entry level iMac with a quad-core Core i5 mid range model and a quad-core Core i7 high end model.

also the i3 , i5, i7 laptop cpus come with intel GMA video and apple will look real bad with a $1200 AIO with crap video.

The point is USB 3 will come to the Mac when it is built into the chipset supporting the CPU. I don' t completely dismiss the possibility of Apple using a discreet USB3 chipset but there are two major considerations. One is that that would be out of the norm for Apple. The second issue is that most of the discreet USB3 chips have only recently been revved to the point they would be acceptable to Apple.

Realize too that both AMD and Intel will have that support in their products very soon. So USB 3 could very well be in the new hardware, it is really a matter of Intel or AMD being willing to tie their product releases to Apples schedule. In otherwords if Apple and AMD team up to release a Fusion based Mac you will get USB3.

Well it would if every USB 3 implementation was up to snuff. You seem to think that I see no need for a high speed bus. Nothing could be further from the truth. Im simply saying Apple wont do USB 3 until it is economucal and reliable. Further USB 3 is dead end tech and one would be wise to carefully consider investing in it.

I'm not sure what is up with Firewire, it will still be far better than USB 3.

As to Apple and Firewire on the Mac Book I honestly doubt they where trying to kill Firewire by deleting it from the Mac Book. There are a number of other things that could have caused that to happen. From issues with power management and budgetting to mixing up data as to average cosummer usage with respect to the Mac Book. Remember Apple sees the Mac Book as its lowest end laptop serving people with modest needs.

In any event Firewire is in many ways like USB3, Apple cant implement the stadard without acceptable hardware. Software without chips is useless. It ha probably been a good year since i last looked at TIs Firewire products, at that time they had nothing to implement Firewire 3200.

In any event Firewire is a niche product that can perform extremely well for products that require it. However outside of those niche uses, it is not well accepted. This is one reason why i want to see LightPeak ASAP with Apple publicly announcing a transition to LightPeak and a phase out of FireWire. In light of LightPeak USB 3 is a bit of a joke.

Dave

Concerning USB 3 AND FW ,

For the last 5 yrs or so apple has geared all its new updates towards wintel users . IPOD taught apple that trick , In effect apple is a major MSFT SW partner.. MAJOR . SO to appease wintel 3rd or 4th party animals .Steve has adopted IUSB for all its ipod,s pads and ios phones .

iMacs are produced in large enough volumes that there is no excuse for not offering both matte and glossy versions. I've owned both; both have advantages and disadvantages; Apple will sell more by giving customers the choice.

As much as I'm looking forward to LightPeak, there is no way it's going to ship in any Mac in 2010. It's simply not ready. I hope LightPeak ships in Macs by the end of 2011.

The point of the retina display is to use more pixels to draw things which are the same physical size... i.e. resolution independence. The appearance of text, for example, will be crisp and sharp at any font size. You could try to display 3 point text, but at you point out almost nobody could read it.

7200x4050 would reduce current GPUs to slag, however.

That's true. However, no one is working on 7200x4050.

It looks like the next major step in desktop display resolution will be 3840x2400 (at 16:10) and 3840x2160 (at 16:9). nVidia's 400 series desktop GPUs should be able to cope. However, without Resolution Independence, the UI of 10.6 (Snow Leopard) is not suited to resolutions higher than about 132dpi. At 132dpi, 3840x2400 equates to a 34" display. Imagine 4 displays taken from the 17" MBP as one integrated desktop display.

iMacs are produced in large enough volumes that there is no excuse for not offering both matte and glossy versions.

I don't see how volume of total sales makes for a good argument.

What if the number of people who would want an aluminium rimmed matte iMac which seems to focus mostly on consumers, not professionals at an increased price, like with their Pro notebooks, are to few and far between to warrant the expense and effort?

We can say that any company will sellmore units by offering more choices, but that doesn't mean they will profit more when all costs and tallied. We can look at the PC and handset markets for verification of this.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

It looks like the next major step in desktop display resolution will be 3840x2400 (at 16:10) and 3840x2160 (at 16:9). nVidia's 400 series desktop GPUs should be able to cope. However, without Resolution Independence, the UI of 10.6 (Snow Leopard) is not suited to resolutions higher than about 132dpi. At 132dpi, 3840x2400 equates to a 34" display. Imagine 4 displays taken from the 17" MBP as one integrated desktop display.

If they could double the display dpi, I'm pretty sure they could make snow leopard deal with that transparently under the hood. The RI support is coming along and what they did in iOS could work on the Mac. It's just doubtful that such displays could be built economically yet. An iPhone display is a very different beast to a 30" panel!